Supreme Court to Examine Obama Immigration Move

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the United States v. Texas case, concerning whether President Obama’s move to delay the deportation of almost 5 million undocumented immigrants is legal.

SCOTUSBLOG outlines the issues:

** Did President Obama exceed the powers of his office in going forward with a massive new immigration policy without approval by Congress, and thus violating that act’s direct restrictions on the use of executive branch power?

** Is the deferred deportation policy a product of “arbitrary and capricious” actions by President Obama and his cabinet departments, and thus violates that act?

** Is the policy subject to review in the courts, applying the act, or are the specific modes of enforcing immigration laws a matter left to the discretion of the president and his cabinet?

** Is the policy illegal, under the APA, [Administrative Procedure Act] because it was not first announced as a draft program, offered to the public for its reactions, or then issued in final form, or is the policy exempt from that requirement because it was achieved through executive branch discretion?

As important as the immigration issue is, the more pressing question concerns the balance of power within the federal government. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)has stated: “The case of United States v. Texas is fundamentally about preserving the separation of powers and its outcome will have drastic implications for our Republic. All three branches of government have weighed in against President Obama’s unilateral actions: the lower courts have blocked them from being implemented, the House of Representatives has filed a brief opposing them, and the President himself stated over 20 times – before he took his unilateral action – that he does not have the authority to change our nation’s immigration laws on his own. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will stop President Obama’s lawlessness so that we protect the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers that the legislative branch, which reflects the will of and is accountable to the American people, makes the laws, not the President.”

National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd testified before the House judiciary Committee in March. He confirmed the existence of what has become known as “catch and release”. According to Judd, “This program directly violates the President’s ‘Priority Enforcement Guidelines’ by refusing to process and deport those who have entered the US illegally after December 31, 2013.”

order viagra sample This may sooner or later lead to mental breakdown. Agents that aid brain function related to excitement signals increase, and the smooth tissues viagra sildenafil and muscles get taut to bring hard on. Storage: Store room temperature away brand cialis for sale from sunlight and moisture in a tight container. Do ensure that you don’t suffer cialis on line australia from vertigo, because this restaurant is located on the 95th floor! Alinea Regulars have described Alinea in the following way: if Bobby Flay’s Bar American were a Coach bag, then the Alinea would be a one-of-a-kind alligator Hermes Birkin! The popularity of this restaurant has grown with each passing year, thanks to the efforts of an extraordinary group of individuals to make. Judd further asks: “Why have Guidelines if you are not going to follow them?…

President Obama … and his cronies continue to mislead and misinform them as they expand amnesty and weaken enforcement and security.

He presented five questions that he wants the White House to answer:

# 1: If the President was expanding his amnesty programs why not just be straight with the American people?

#2: Does this expansion put our communities at risk? … It appears that President Obama’s priority is not and will never be enforcement but amnesty.

#3 : Is the Commissioner power hungry or incompetent? Either he has to go. This hearing should put the spotlight on Richard Gil Kerlikowske the current Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Judd questions Kerlikowske’s leadership and ability to head U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If he was following directives from the President then the President owes the public an explanation why he kept this a secret. If the President was unaware of the program he needs to restore public trust by removing those responsible. It is sad that after seven years, Obama’s has no plan to enforce our nation’s immigrations laws.

# 4 : Why not ask for additional resource to address the court backlog? If the Administration was concerned with the court’s backlog why not request additional funds to expedite the case by either hiring more judges or expanding Operation Streamline. Simply put, the Administration is not be interested in fixing a problem they intentionally created. They have manipulated the situation to expand their amnesty programs without Congressional or pubic consent.

# 5: Isn’t this just a page torn from the “Dreamers Playbook” ? The main argument “Dreamer” made was by no fault of their own they were here illegally and should not be held responsible this act and therefore granted citizenship. It is reasonable that those not issued NTA as part to “Catch and Release” program will make the same claim as part demand for amnesty. The Administration and the Democrats must believe this is good politics.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.